Offseason thought: NBA contract solutions

People often talk about the problems with NBA contracts. Too long, too big, too little incentive to perform once money is guaranteed, unbalanced in owner's favor if not guaranteed, no loyalty on either side, etc. So since there's nothing going on right now, why not take some time to bandy about some suggestions for making it better?

Seems to me that both players and owners could benefit from greater flexibility being built into contracts. My suggestion: what if all contracts over 2 years in length had mandatory semi-opt-outs on both sides?

• If a player seemed to be significantly under-performing their deal, the team could propose reduction in salary for the remainder of the contract (no lower than half the initial value), in response to which the player could either accept the reduction or be fully released from their deal if they think they can do better as a UFA. Gives teams a recourse from Mosgov/Biyombo-type deals
• Similarly, if a player felt he was vastly over-performing his deal, after 2 years he could opt for RFA to try to go out and get a better deal (at least as long as what remains on the existing deal), but the team would of course retain the right to match. Gives players like Isaiah Thomas or Steph Curry an option to avoid being ridiculously underpaid.

Would something like that create too much instability? Would it be too unbalanced in favor of one side or the other? How would you alter it to make it better? Would you propose a completely different solution to the NBA contract question? Is this just an attempt to fix a non-existent problem?

 

Not necessarily--they'd be partially guaranteed, and only eligible for reduction after 2 years, and by no more than 50%, so essentially 75% guaranteed, minimum. And the players would also see salary increases from the early RFA option, so there's a potential benefit to them as well.

If you don't think the 2-year-RFA is enough to offset the partial non-guarantee, what would it take in your mind to balance the proposal? Or would you propose something completely different altogether?

 

You mean, unable to renegotiate when they find themselves in the middle of vastly-below-market-value deals? Yep, can't see why they'd want to change that.

 

Massive difference between my suggestion and NFL contracts.

Yes, players can sign short team deals, but if you can have similar flexibility with more guaranteed money, that's generally better, isn't it? If (for example) Harkless had the option last summer between:

• $20M guaranteed over 2 years
• $40M guaranteed over 4 years
  
• $40M over 4 years with $30M guaranteed and an RFA opt-out after 2 years

Which do you think he would have chosen? There's most certainly an argument for all three.

You're so focused on the 25% non-guarantee that you're completely discounting the value of the mid-contract opt-out. Do you honestly believe the players wouldn't see value in such a deal?

 

That's even more extreme than my version.

 

How about letting the owners and players sign whatever they agree to? Including incentives, guarantees, opt outs, etc.

 

So do away with salary cap and contract restrictions altogether?

 

Sure. Billionaires need protection against their own ability to negotiate?

 

I don't see it. If the player is good enough to be in the league, any competing offers would assure a decent payday.

If I were a player, I'd only accept a contract with an opt out. Just like the elite players get (LeBron, Durant, etc.)

 

Seems naive (or disingenuous) to suggest that's the only reason it exists, but I'm not in the mood to argue with you.